A lawsuit involving Infinite Warfare went nowhere in a hurry.
Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare

In July 2022, a lawsuit against Activision Blizzard was dismissed because the plaintiffs did not play enough Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare. This is part of the actual ruling made by a judge in the Southern California District Court as relayed by Kotaku.

A report by the law firm of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati says that Activision Blizzard was sued in November 2021 by Brooks Entertainment Inc., a company based out of California that specializes in TV and film production. According to searches, this company does not seem to have any sort of an official website. Brooks Entertainment is allegedly run by CEO Shon Brooks. As a self-professed inventor, Brooks claims they hold trademarks for financial mobile games Save One Bank and Stock Picker. Searches also turn up nothing indicating that these games exist either.

Brooks says in his lawsuit that Activision ripped some of his intellectual property from Save One Bank and Stock Picker. That content was allegedly used in Infinite Warfare. Specifically, the complaint by Brooks says that the "main character" for the game, Sean Brooks, was based off of him. He also claims that the games had "scripted battle scenes that take place in a high fashion couture shopping center mall." There were additional, smaller complaints but those were his biggest issues brought up in the lawsuit.

In Infinite Warfare, you actually play as Nick Reyes, a squadmate of Sean Brooks. Though there is a scripted battle sequence in a shopping mall, it is in a far-future Geneva and is just one of many locations you fight through in Infinite Warfare.

In January 2022, Activision’s counsel wrote to Brooks Entertainment’s counsel that the complaint “contain[ed] serious factual misrepresentations and errors, and that the claims set forth therein are both factually and legally frivolous.” If the company didn’t withdraw the lawsuit, Activision would file Rule 11 sanctions, penalties requiring the plaintiff to pay a fine for submitting dubious or improper arguments without substantial—or, for that matter, accurate—evidentiary support. And that’s exactly what happened in March 2022, when Activision filed its motions for sanctions against Brooks Entertainment, saying the plaintiffs failed to play Infinite Warfare and provided inaccurate filings.
In July, the Southern California District Court accepted Activision's Rule 11 sanctions filing. The court dismissed Brook Entertainment's lawsuit with prejudice, meaning it cannot be filed again at that court. Brooks and his counsel was ordered to compensate Activision Blizzard for the money and time wasted on the lawsuit.

The court said that the plaintiff, Brooks, failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the relevant facts before filing the suit.

The court concluded that the “Plaintiff's counsel failed to conduct a reasonable pre-filing inquiry into the relevant facts” alleged in the Complaint because, among other things, Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare “is a first-person shooter game, not first-and third-person as alleged, and Sean Brooks does not conduct a scripted battle scene in a high fashion couture shopping mall. Plaintiff's counsel could have easily verified these facts prior to filing the factually baseless Complaint, just as the Court easily verified them within the first hour and a half of playing the game.”
Additional statements by video game lawyer guy, Richard Hoeg, says that things like names of people used in fiction are difficult to copyright and claim infringement on.

In the end, because the legal team and plaintiff didn't seem to even play the game a meager hour and a half to see that the complaints weren't valid, Brooks and his legal counsel now have to pay compensation to Activision Blizzard.